GNC creatine monohydrate

[getb1g]

is it any good?

http://www.gnc.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2133642&cp&pg=1&sr=1&origkw=creatine+monohydrate&kw=creatine+monohydrate&parentPage=search

[Bikkstah]

I'm sure it's as good as any other brand of creatine monohydrate. $40 for 1000g is about 2-3x as expensive as a non-GNC brand though.

[smokinHawk]

i just got finish up my the gnc as i got it on sale 1000g for $22 seemed to work fine,
now i just picked some up at walmart 400g for under $10

[Cirino83]

it should be fine. any plain monohydrate will 'work' or do what it's supposed to. The main difference to me is the price. www.atlargenutrition.com has a nice, cheap creatine. just don't get the fancy muscletech or any of that other overpriced/hyped crap.

[jdeity]

GNC's 'creatine kilo' is retailed at ~$40, but is almost always on sale (usually either $30, $20, or buy one get one half off, so two for $30 apiece). It's supposedly tested by a third party company, although I've yet to hear who the company is.

Creatine being so cheap though, I doubt they'd have a poor product. The GNC bulk pure creatine mono is pretty much the only creatine I've ever used consistently (I always try the new stuff if I can score it for free :)

[malkore]

i'm not sure GNC's is CreaPure processed, and it sure is gritty.

but otherwise its fine if you get it for a good price.

[jdeity]

If GNC's is gritty, damn, maybe you got a bad batch. I've always used their pure creatine mono and it's never been gritty at all. It could've been a bad batch, close to expiration, or a product other than pure creatine mono 100%.

[naturally]

I'm pretty sure the GNC brand of creatine is not micronized.

[jdeity]

micronized?

If GNC's stuff is gritty compared to others (creapure, micronized, etc), then the difference can't be that bad, because I've always found their creatine to be a fine powder that mixed well, so the difference isn't much.

[-Superman-]

The majority of the stuff at GNC is good/legit. However, it is overpriced 99.99% of the time compared to what you can buy on the internet or at the greatest supplement site on the internet - AtLargeNutrition.com. At AtLarge, you can find all your supplement and bodybuilding needs at reasonable prices and with friendly service. Next time you want to try creatine, try creatine from AtLargeNutrition.com!

:thumbup:

[korexite]

creapure is the highest quality monohydrate. I personally use purecee tablets (which is CEE, not mono). another option is kreakalyn, which is basically a base buffered monohydrate.

[jdeity]

The majority of the stuff at GNC is good/legit. However, it is overpriced 99.99% of the time compared to what you can buy on the internet or at the greatest supplement site on the internet - AtLargeNutrition.com. At AtLarge, you can find all your supplement and bodybuilding needs at reasonable prices and with friendly service. Next time you want to try creatine, try creatine from AtLargeNutrition.com!

:thumbup:

I dunno about that... GNC, generally speaking, is about on the same price point as atlarge is. GNC has cheaper fish oils, atlarge has cheaper creatines. GNC you can grab w/o s/h costs. GNC has sales, but so does atlarge. I guess what I mean is that, as far as raw prices go, atlarge isn't that much cheaper than GNC, and once you factor in saved s/h charges and gold card discounts, plus the fact that everything at GNC is usually on some kind of 'buy one, get one half off' sale, they're about the same.






creapure is the highest quality monohydrate. I personally use purecee tablets (which is CEE, not mono). another option is kreakalyn, which is basically a base buffered monohydrate.

And that's proven how? Did creapure say that? I'd have to wager that any reputable company's pure creatine monohydrate is pretty much the same thing - pure, solid quality, creatine monohydrate.

And about CEE, why even bother? I'm not even gonna ask about your buffered creatines...

[korexite]

And that's proven how? Did creapure say that? I'd have to wager that any reputable company's pure creatine monohydrate is pretty much the same thing - pure, solid quality, creatine monohydrate.

And about CEE, why even bother? I'm not even gonna ask about your buffered creatines...


creapure is made in germany. its a bit more rigourously tested than most creatine which comes out of china. There are definite quality differences among monohydrates, things like micronization make a difference in bioavailability and solubility as well.

why bother with CEE, because it works a lot better than mono for a lot of people and generally does not cause bloat. those are pretty big points for most people.

krealakyn is not sold as buffered creatine but basically it is a base buffer which does reduce some of the acid hydrolysis that creatine undergoes. So it reduce gastric distress and overall bloat. I dont personally reccomend it, but I have tried it and its better (for me) than mono. But not as good at CEE.

[jdeity]

I'm all for recommending CEE if you could show me more than anecdotal reports that it 'works better' or causes less bloat. In fact, isn't the bloat from creatine *completely* intercellular muscle cell bloat? If that's the case, and you wanna look big, then the more bloat the better.

Also, regarding your CEE recommendations, and the krealakyn stuff,
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=100770

You also claim that micronization makes a difference in bioavailability - where did you hear that? I seriously doubt that's the case, and if it is the case, I can promise you that this difference in bioavailability is so small as to be completely insignificant.


Don't get me wrong, if you're privvy to valid info that would actually prove that CEE or krealakyn had ANY benefits over mono, then that would change things. My guess is you won't have anything to fall back on to prove this besides anecdotal reports, which are completely worthless in areas like this.

[korexite]

I'm all for recommending CEE if you could show me more than anecdotal reports that it 'works better' or causes less bloat. In fact, isn't the bloat from creatine *completely* intercellular muscle cell bloat? If that's the case, and you wanna look big, then the more bloat the better.


bloat makes you look fat and does nothing for performance. And bloat comes from creatine byproduct, creatinine. I dont have any research that proves CEE is better than monohydrate, but ethyl ester delivery of amino acid drugs is pretty well established.

[korexite]

Also, regarding your CEE recommendations, and the krealakyn stuff,
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=100770



those studies were done by a guy who owns a company that makes creatine monohydrate. The methodology has been torn apart on several different forums.

I suggest you actually try them. Since its very unlikely that you will see research on a compound that is unpatentable.

[jdeity]

bloat makes you look fat and does nothing for performance. And bloat comes from creatine byproduct, creatinine. I dont have any research that proves CEE is better than monohydrate, but ethyl ester delivery of amino acid drugs is pretty well established.

Unless I'm mistaken, any bloat/water retention from creatine is *strictly* intracellular, and only in skeletal muscles. If that's true, and you wanna look bigger, then you'd want as much water retention as possible right?


those studies were done by a guy who owns a company that makes creatine monohydrate. The methodology has been torn apart on several different forums.

I suggest you actually try them. Since its very unlikely that you will see research on a compound that is unpatentable.

Damn my bad for linking to that thread!! I still wouldn't rule it out til I saw both sides though (I assume it was torn apart on a supplement forum, and if that's the case then it's just as likely that someone was trying to shred his study if they sold CEE, just like he was trying to shred them because he sells mono. The more I think about it it doesn't even make much sense - why would a creatine mono producer do such a bogus study? Seems if he's a chemical producer/supplier he'd be a little more on point as far as faking a study... who knows).

I may try them at some point, but I like that creatine mono is the most (only?) one that's actually studied. If CEE turned out to be slightly better, but I knew nothing of its health effects, I would still stick to mono. Especially once you take price into account. I've always found creatine to give me *zero* noticable effects, and have only used because of the data supporting creatine. I feel like, unless CEE is leaps better, it's really splitting hairs.

[getb1g]

Ive been using it for about a week now and i can see a little water weigt gain in my muscles. good stuff!

[korexite]

I've always found creatine to give me *zero* noticable effects, and have only used because of the data supporting creatine. I feel like, unless CEE is leaps better, it's really splitting hairs.

read what you wrote. If creatine gave you no effect then you are either a non responder or had zero uptake. You are the kind of person that would benefits by "leaps and bounds".

[jdeity]

No noticable effects, but I doubt it was truly giving me no effects. Also, is there even validity behind this whole 'non-responder' stuff? I know I hear the term thrown around, but I guess I always kinda placed it in the same category as the phrase 'hard gainer'.


You are the kind of person that would benefits by "leaps and bounds".

I guess it's just semantics, because as far as I know the only products that can offer benefits of leaps bounds are steroids :/